politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » George Osborne’s first PMQs is a reminder of how strong his leadership chances are
It’s a big day for George Osborne. Cameron is away so, as the First Secretary of State in the new Conservative Government, he will be taking PMQs for the very first time – a very clear statement of his position in the pecking order.
1) Does George Osborne want the job? This seems wholly unclear. He obviously enjoys power but there is nothing that shows that he unequivocally wants to be the front man. Would he prefer to repeat his 2005 success of pushing forward a more presentable alternative and continuing to pull the strings behind the scenes? Right now George Osborne looks happier in power and happier in what he is doing than he ever has previously.
2) Even if he does, is his closeness to David Cameron going to be an advantage or a disadvantage at the critical moment? After the EU referendum, it seems likely that a clean break from the old regime might be sought if that was a divisive process.
3) Since the general election result and David Cameron's announcement that he's not seeking a third term, laying Boris Johnson for next Conservative leader has been one of the easiest bets in politics. The next Conservative leader will immediately be Prime Minister and inevitably the contest will focus on executive competence and steadiness rather than charisma.
Stella Creasy is at 4-1 with Hills, that seems like a touch of value to me on the basis that some of that 4-1 price was based on the fact she may not have been on the ballot and that clearing the 35 was tricky for her.
Whilst antifrank makes some good points on other side of the argument, on balance I think Mike is right that the current odds on Osborne are attractive.
However, you can get better odds on him* being next PM than on next leader - the two are almost identical contigencies in current circumstances.
Farcical process - with 6 candidates or fewer they should all be given a free pass onto the ballot.
But this is the party of the block vote, Buggins' Turn, the electoral college and Brown hoovering up all the MP nominations to prevent the "election" he was contesting.
It's realistically between Watson and Creasy for Labour deputy leader. Labour are looking for someone who can build up and work with the grassroots of the party, Creasy has some new ideas and Watson has been very prominent campaigning locally. Ex-mid level ministers like Flint and Eagle don't have much appeal.
Hilary vs George Q1: 17 year old bomber A1: Easy one. Nice comment about "Bennites in the party leadership contest" (thinks: 'this is fun') Q2: Anti-radicalisation programmes not working A2: Whatever (thinks 'there must be a trap here') Q3: More anti-radicalisation stuff A3: Blah, blah, easy peasy (thinks: 'apparently not') Q4: ISIS/ISIL - we must confront them! A4: Well, yes, obviously. (thinks: 'PMQ is a piece of cake') Q5: International aid / syrian refugees A5: Blah (thinks 'don't what Dave moans about') Q6: Refugees: withdrawing S&R ship from med? A6: Evade. Easy. (thinks 'wonder what's for dinner?')
All-in-all, about as challenging as a modern day GCSE. Not a test at all.
I'm obviously missing something about the Labour party leadership election process, but I had assumed that the requirement of getting 15% support in the Parliamentary party was to ensure that only credible candidates were put forward. Nomination-loaning seems quite pointless.
Osborne seems to be answering the questions rather more than Cameron does. Admittedly, this might partly be because the questions seem to be more sensible than usual.
So on the ballot: Watson, Bradshaw, Eagle, Flint, Creasy ?
Burnham and Watson has to be the ultimate dream for any Conservative.
I remember Kinnock + Hattersley being hailed as Labour's "dream ticket" in 1983. The only better outcome for the Tories would have been Kinnock + Benn. The process sent the very clear message to the punters about the state Labour was in. Labour was so loony left it actually felt relieved at having a couple of irresponsible unreconstructed spendthrift surrender monkeys in charge, because by Labour's lights in 1983, these were both "moderates". Well, yeah - but only compared to Bennov.
One struggles to think of any outcome that wouldn't be a dream ticket today. Kendall / Flint, maybe; one a green cleanskin and the other an actual ex Minister although a lightweight and a bit too gorgeous and pouting (http://www.sunnation.co.uk/s3/sunnation-prod/uploads/2015/03/Caroline-Flint..jpg) to take seriously. Neither of them downright dislikeable though.
Hilary vs George Q1: 17 year old bomber A1: Easy one. Nice comment about "Bennites in the party leadership contest" (thinks: 'this is fun') Q2: Anti-radicalisation programmes not working A2: Whatever (thinks 'there must be a trap here') Q3: More anti-radicalisation stuff A3: Blah, blah, easy peasy (thinks: 'apparently not') Q4: ISIS/ISIL - we must confront them! A4: Well, yes, obviously. (thinks: 'PMQ is a piece of cake') Q5: International aid / syrian refugees A5: Blah (thinks 'don't what Dave moans about') Q6: Refugees: withdrawing S&R ship from med? A6: Evade. Easy. (thinks 'wonder what's for dinner?')
All-in-all, about as challenging as a modern day GCSE. Not a test at all.
Presumably it was felt George would be weakest on foreign matters
Hilary vs George Q1: 17 year old bomber A1: Easy one. Nice comment about "Bennites in the party leadership contest" (thinks: 'this is fun') Q2: Anti-radicalisation programmes not working A2: Whatever (thinks 'there must be a trap here') Q3: More anti-radicalisation stuff A3: Blah, blah, easy peasy (thinks: 'apparently not') Q4: ISIS/ISIL - we must confront them! A4: Well, yes, obviously. (thinks: 'PMQ is a piece of cake') Q5: International aid / syrian refugees A5: Blah (thinks 'don't what Dave moans about') Q6: Refugees: withdrawing S&R ship from med? A6: Evade. Easy. (thinks 'wonder what's for dinner?')
All-in-all, about as challenging as a modern day GCSE. Not a test at all.
Presumably it was felt George would be weakest on foreign matters
Perhaps. Not one of the questions was especially testing. John Prescott could have dealt with them whilst reading the Hull Daily Mail and eating a king-size pork pie.
It comes across as rather racist. How is it anti-black to limit immigration? I would guess the biggest demographic immigrating here these days are white people from Eastern Europe. Sajid Javid isn't up for the running of the Tory leadership because of tokenism towards an Asian man, he's there because he's good. Should the Labour party really be putting up racially divisive candidates like Diane Abbott and Sadiq Khan just so it can show it likes non-white people?
I'm obviously missing something about the Labour party leadership election process, but I had assumed that the requirement of getting 15% support in the Parliamentary party was to ensure that only credible candidates were put forward. Nomination-loaning seems quite pointless.
Unintended consequences I'd guess. 15% does indeed prevent silly candidates, but fails to take into account what happens if differently-silly candidates subvert the election by continuing to collect surplus nominations when they've already got the necessary 15%. The result as here is fewer candidates; in the really absurd case of the odious Brown, in only one candidate, which he clearly thought had been jolly clever.
Someone who does this but then loans the excess nominations back to another candidate is honouring the spirit of the contest rules but is essentially doing two things to achieve nothing, which should perhaps give fair warning as to what the schmo would be like as PM. A sensible candidate would declare at 35 and stop collecting names.
Labour really ought to have seen that coming but unlike, say, the failure of banking regulation, they didn't have the benefit of prescient advice from people like Peter Lilley.
It comes across as rather racist. How is it anti-black to limit immigration? I would guess the biggest demographic immigrating here these days are white people from Eastern Europe. Sajid Javid isn't up for the running of the Tory leadership because of tokenism towards an Asian man, he's there because he's good. Should the Labour party really be putting up racially divisive candidates like Diane Abbott and Sadiq Khan just so it can show it likes non-white people?
I think we saw what it thinks of non-white people in Rotherham. But Labour clearly thinks the answer to your ending question is Yes. And so does Khan, who favours racial quotas and thus presumably favours racial quotas that include himself. Diane Abbott appears to be a racist herself so I doubt she'd ever take issue with racial preference.
I'm obviously missing something about the Labour party leadership election process, but I had assumed that the requirement of getting 15% support in the Parliamentary party was to ensure that only credible candidates were put forward. Nomination-loaning seems quite pointless.
Unintended consequences I'd guess. 15% does indeed prevent silly candidates, but fails to take into account what happens if differently-silly candidates subvert the election by continuing to collect surplus nominations when they've already got the necessary 15%. The result as here is fewer candidates; in the really absurd case of the odious Brown, in only one candidate, which he clearly thought had been jolly clever.
Someone who does this but then loans the excess nominations back to another candidate is honouring the spirit of the contest rules but is essentially doing two things to achieve nothing, which should perhaps give fair warning as to what the schmo would be like as PM. A sensible candidate would declare at 35 and stop collecting names.
Labour really ought to have seen that coming but unlike, say, the failure of banking regulation, they didn't have the benefit of prescient advice from people like Peter Lilley.
The Conservative system results in only two candidates being put to the wider electorate by the time that the MPs have concluded their part of the process. I don't recall much concern about the small number of such candidates in Conservative leadership elections.
When Osborne spoke about what the Prime Minister was doing he almost sounded as if he was talking about a subordinate to whom he'd given an important assignment.
When Osborne spoke about what the Prime Minister was doing he almost sounded as if he was talking about a subordinate to whom he'd given an important assignment.
Osborne has, if anything, been more vindicated by last month's events than Cameron. He had a very good election.
Cameron, Osborne and Hodges: three people widely derided on here, but who appear to have more nous than their detractors.
The Conservative system results in only two candidates being put to the wider electorate by the time that the MPs have concluded their part of the process. I don't recall much concern about the small number of such candidates in Conservative leadership elections.
It comes across as rather racist. How is it anti-black to limit immigration? I would guess the biggest demographic immigrating here these days are white people from Eastern Europe. Sajid Javid isn't up for the running of the Tory leadership because of tokenism towards an Asian man, he's there because he's good. Should the Labour party really be putting up racially divisive candidates like Diane Abbott and Sadiq Khan just so it can show it likes non-white people?
It comes across as rather racist. How is it anti-black to limit immigration? I would guess the biggest demographic immigrating here these days are white people from Eastern Europe. Sajid Javid isn't up for the running of the Tory leadership because of tokenism towards an Asian man, he's there because he's good. Should the Labour party really be putting up racially divisive candidates like Diane Abbott and Sadiq Khan just so it can show it likes non-white people?
Indeed. And, the title is deliberately inflammatory as well as introducing comparisons with German National Socialism.
It's silly to refer to all ethnic minority voters as "black" too.
I have to say in terms of "actually answering questions" George did pretty well. A very civilised and constructive session.
Dave might be regretting his choice of deputy on this evidence...
To be fair, Dave has never faced Hilary Benn bowling an under-arm tennis ball at him before. Although, some of Ed's efforts were hardly bodyline bowling....
I'm still not convinced about Prime Minister Osborne. He has an opportunity to be a historically top-notch Chancellor. But for that to happen, he has to stay and guide the recovery through this full term (especially if the upcoming Budget is as radical as some have suggested).
The stability of his remaining in post would also be a great comfort to an incoming Prime Minister.This would be a reason for me as a Party member NOT to vote for him as a new PM. With Osborne as PM, it is likely to be musical chairs across Govt. - and who knows how that plays out.
There is also no guarantee that he would be as good as a PM as he was a CotE. History might just remember him as a poor PM who lost the majority, rather than the best Chancellor we have known.
With inflation more or less perfectly at zero, wages up, unemployment down is it all Europe that's caused the FTSE to fall ~ 300 pts over the last fortnight or so ?
It's silly to refer to all ethnic minority voters as "black" too.
Do the Irish and Poles count as ethnic minorities or not these days? I can never keep up with the latest rulings from the high priests of political correctness.
I'm about 80% sure Osborne will take over from Cameron... And although he will probably win the 2020 election due to Lab's weakness, I think he will prove a disaster for the Con's and eventually take them back to Opposition...
With inflation more or less perfectly at zero, wages up, unemployment down is it all Europe that's caused the FTSE to fall ~ 300 pts over the last fortnight or so ?
I've always thought Osborne would never want to be Tory Leader, but prefers to be the Éminence grise, first for Cameron, then Javid.
But like Mike, I'm now thinking he wants it, and he can have it.
The Tory Party really do appreciate his skills as a top top strategist and tactician.
No wonder he is being compared to Caesar
I was with you on not thinking he even wanted to be leader, but right now, why not? He's only 44, he's had time to grow into his position and done a great job for his party. It certainly is not as silly as it once seemed.
It's silly to refer to all ethnic minority voters as "black" too.
Do the Irish and Poles count as ethnic minorities or not these days? I can never keep up with the latest rulings from the high priests of political correctness.
Good question. I have noticed more references to BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) rather than BME these days, so there's been some shifts (if not to the Greens' LGBTIQ everywhere), certainly.
I was with you on not thinking he even wanted to be leader, but right now, why not? He's only 44, he's had time to grow into his position and done a great job for his party. It certainly is not as silly as it once seemed.
If only there was a regular contributor to this site who was an expert on all things Osborne that could chart every significant moment of his career and inevitable rise to power and greatness...
I'm still not convinced about Prime Minister Osborne. He has an opportunity to be a historically top-notch Chancellor. But for that to happen, he has to stay and guide the recovery through this full term (especially if the upcoming Budget is as radical as some have suggested).
The stability of his remaining in post would also be a great comfort to an incoming Prime Minister.This would be a reason for me as a Party member NOT to vote for him as a new PM. With Osborne as PM, it is likely to be musical chairs across Govt. - and who knows how that plays out.
There is also no guarantee that he would be as good as a PM as he was a CotE. History might just remember him as a poor PM who lost the majority, rather than the best Chancellor we have known.
Surely that counts double when you're talking about Cameron's legacy. That's why I still have a feeling that Cameron might go back on his plan to leave before the election.
If Osborne is the next leader then it makes the question of what Cameron does next even more difficult. I can't see him sitting on the back-benches so he either retreats a la John Major or takes a Cabinet job. Either would be very unusual in the circumstances.
If George Osborne were to become next Prime Minister, I'd have bragging rights for life with two of my nephews and nieces. When I told them a couple of years ago that it was a serious possibility, they looked at me as though I had two heads.
Osborne's star is currently in the ascendant. Five years is a long time to sustain that. I suspect he will FO at some-point in the next two years to get that global experience and lower the risk.
Cameron's pledge to serve a full second term (but not thinking about a third) makes sense if you think of it as a tactic to head off leadership speculation early in the parliament. At a time when a majority didn't seem likely he may have thought that calls for Boris/someone else to take over could have been a big problem for him right now.
I've always thought Osborne would never want to be Tory Leader, but prefers to be the Éminence grise, first for Cameron, then Javid.
But like Mike, I'm now thinking he wants it, and he can have it.
The Tory Party really do appreciate his skills as a top top strategist and tactician.
No wonder he is being compared to Caesar
I was with you on not thinking he even wanted to be leader, but right now, why not? He's only 44, he's had time to grow into his position and done a great job for his party. It certainly is not as silly as it once seemed.
I have another pro Osborne thread coming up in the next few days.
I think I'm going to have revise it some more.
To think someone wrote a thread three years ago saying Osborne was crap and needed to be replaced by Ken Clarke.
As I've said on here many times, it's always a mistake not to take Cameron at his word. The pledge is clear; a full term. I therefore see him going all the way to 2020, with a new Conservative Party leader selected a year ahead of time, who will lead the GE campaign as the designated 'next' prime minister.
Osborne's star is currently in the ascendant. Five years is a long time to sustain that. I suspect he will FO at some-point in the next two years to get that global experience and lower the risk.
It is a long time, but in fairness his supposed top rival, Boris, has been trying to stretch out his star's ascendancy even longer (I think his moment has passed - the timing and his position was never right to have a go at it at his ascendancy). And considering he has been chancellor for 5 years, he's been pretty low key, no Gordon Brown type battling it out for control with his PM, so he's experienced and powerful, but without as much of a profile as his job would suggest, giving him time even now to build up a PM like profile I think.
I still don't know if he can manage it (or win in 2020 if he does), or if he will try to steer things from behind the scenes forevermore (I have this vision of him being chancellor for 15-20 years, switching out his frontman when he needs to), but when suggested as an option now, I'd expect people to shrug before answering in the positive or negative now, whereas before it would just be instant dismissal.
Could be fun - newer faces wanting to rise, but Osborne is old guard but still fresh faced (It's hard to think he will have been chancellor for 10 years possibly before he is even 50), a threat to their chances.
As I've said on here many times, it's always a mistake not to take Cameron at his word. The pledge is clear; a full term.
Indeed that's the only 'cast iron' pledge I can see in his words about this. He said he 'wasn't contemplating a third term' which only means he's focused on the here and now. His options are still open.
Osborne will always be the continuity candidate, no matter what he does between now and the end of the parliament. The question is whether the continuity candidate will get elected.
I've always thought Osborne would never want to be Tory Leader, but prefers to be the Éminence grise, first for Cameron, then Javid.
But like Mike, I'm now thinking he wants it, and he can have it.
The Tory Party really do appreciate his skills as a top top strategist and tactician.
No wonder he is being compared to Caesar
I still think Javid is by far the best choice for the Tory Party, assuming he proves to be a competent Minister and (more importantly) an effective communicator. But I doubt he'd stand in Osborne's way.
I'm obviously missing something about the Labour party leadership election process, but I had assumed that the requirement of getting 15% support in the Parliamentary party was to ensure that only credible candidates were put forward. Nomination-loaning seems quite pointless.
Unintended consequences I'd guess. 15% does indeed prevent silly candidates, but fails to take into account what happens if differently-silly candidates subvert the election by continuing to collect surplus nominations when they've already got the necessary 15%. The result as here is fewer candidates; in the really absurd case of the odious Brown, in only one candidate, which he clearly thought had been jolly clever.
Someone who does this but then loans the excess nominations back to another candidate is honouring the spirit of the contest rules but is essentially doing two things to achieve nothing, which should perhaps give fair warning as to what the schmo would be like as PM. A sensible candidate would declare at 35 and stop collecting names.
Labour really ought to have seen that coming but unlike, say, the failure of banking regulation, they didn't have the benefit of prescient advice from people like Peter Lilley.
The Conservative system results in only two candidates being put to the wider electorate by the time that the MPs have concluded their part of the process. I don't recall much concern about the small number of such candidates in Conservative leadership elections.
It can't ever really be one candidate though can it? - unless that is what the parliamentary party wants. Foisting someone on them that they don't actually support rarely ends well (IDS, EIC)
As I've said on here many times, it's always a mistake not to take Cameron at his word. The pledge is clear; a full term. I therefore see him going all the way to 2020, with a new Conservative Party leader selected a year ahead of time, who will lead the GE campaign as the designated 'next' prime minister.
Agree with that. He'll have his successor chosen at Conference 2019 and that person will lead the policy formulation and campaign while DC stays as PM up until the election.
The alternative, of course, is that DC crashes out in the aftermath of the EU referendum, in which case anything could happen in the melee that follows!
I am pleased to see @antifrank agree with me that laying Boris is the way forward now, I've got nearly four figures on that position at close to evens.
It's silly to refer to all ethnic minority voters as "black" too.
Do the Irish and Poles count as ethnic minorities or not these days? I can never keep up with the latest rulings from the high priests of political correctness.
I think they're regarded by Labour with contempt, as just generic WWC scum, except that the name on the side of the white van is Polish.
It's silly to refer to all ethnic minority voters as "black" too.
Do the Irish and Poles count as ethnic minorities or not these days? I can never keep up with the latest rulings from the high priests of political correctness.
Good question. I have noticed more references to BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) rather than BME these days, so there's been some shifts (if not to the Greens' LGBTIQ everywhere), certainly.
It should be "Ethnic Minority" in my opinion! "Minority Ethnique" sounds a little Francophone
Stella is the favourite for the deputy contest IMO. She actually has the balls to stand up for things, unlike the majority of the rather feeble frontbench.
Tom Watson is one of those people who has got a "left-wing" tag despite no-one ever being able to pinpoint any left-wing views he has. I dunno, but I've never really got the impression there's all that much enthusiasm for him with the grassroots.
Sajid Javid isn't up for the running of the Tory leadership because of tokenism towards an Asian man, he's there because he's good. Should the Labour party really be putting up racially divisive candidates like Diane Abbott and Sadiq Khan just so it can show it likes non-white people?
Exactly. The Conservatives don't care about gender or race in the same way as Labour, yet Sajid Javid, Priti Patel, Theresa May and others are there on merit rather then to fill some quota or other. Don't whatever you do mention M******t T*****r!
Arf I won a twitter tipping competition yesterday for a £50 free bet, somehow had unfollowed the prizegiver ( @Raceclear) and didn't even back the nags myself
Question is, will GO come to see his hitherto desired role as FS now as somehow diminishing his record as CotE? If so then that pushes him upwards, towards PM, for legacy purposes.
In other news, thank goodness we don't live in the US or have to abide by their current/future/past "ok" way to refer to "people of color".
It really does tie them up in knots, brought into focus with this Dolezal case, hearing the protagonists and commentators discuss it.
Stella is the favourite for the deputy contest IMO. She actually has the balls to stand up for things, unlike the majority of the rather feeble frontbench.
Tom Watson is one of those people who has got a "left-wing" tag despite no-one ever being able to pinpoint any left-wing views he has. I dunno, but I've never really got the impression there's all that much enthusiasm for him with the grassroots.
Hope you're right. It seems blindingly obvious to me that she's the best of the bunch.
Hilary vs George Q1: 17 year old bomber A1: Easy one. Nice comment about "Bennites in the party leadership contest" (thinks: 'this is fun') Q2: Anti-radicalisation programmes not working A2: Whatever (thinks 'there must be a trap here') Q3: More anti-radicalisation stuff A3: Blah, blah, easy peasy (thinks: 'apparently not') Q4: ISIS/ISIL - we must confront them! A4: Well, yes, obviously. (thinks: 'PMQ is a piece of cake') Q5: International aid / syrian refugees A5: Blah (thinks 'don't what Dave moans about') Q6: Refugees: withdrawing S&R ship from med? A6: Evade. Easy. (thinks 'wonder what's for dinner?')
All-in-all, about as challenging as a modern day GCSE. Not a test at all.
Didn't see it but this strikes me as extremely sensible from Benn. Osborne has the capacity to be really quite brutal given the opportunity so it was better to ask him questions on issues that are really not contentious.
If they wanted something more exciting Labour should really have put up one of the candidates for leader but I bet none of them fancied it. Too much to lose.
If George Osborne were to become next Prime Minister, I'd have bragging rights for life with two of my nephews and nieces. When I told them a couple of years ago that it was a serious possibility, they looked at me as though I had two heads.
Sorry to break this to you, antifrank, but they'll have forgotten all about it, and when you remind them, they'll think you're rather sad...
Tom Watson is one of those people who has got a "left-wing" tag despite no-one ever being able to pinpoint any left-wing views he has. I dunno, but I've never really got the impression there's all that much enthusiasm for him with the grassroots.
Incorrect.
BTW, how many of you got on Corbyn at north of 100/1? Now 18/1 on Betfair.
Why ? I judge the man on his ability and he's ineffective. An overpromoted furby sits in the big chair for a bit, nothing much will happen bar gimmicks.
Time to go balls deep on In winning at least 70% of the vote
Nigel Farage defied critics this morning to vow he will lead the charge for the No campaign because other politicians won’t step up.
His comments are a direct challenge to senior Tories, who claim the controversial Ukip boss is too “toxic” to take a high profile role in the campaign.
As I've said on here many times, it's always a mistake not to take Cameron at his word. The pledge is clear; a full term. I therefore see him going all the way to 2020, with a new Conservative Party leader selected a year ahead of time, who will lead the GE campaign as the designated 'next' prime minister.
That would be a bit daft though. Why not let the prospective PM show the electorate what he can actually do for a year by having the job? To do otherwise would suggest a lack of confidence in the new man or woman.
Why give up that massive advantage that the Tories have over the Labour prospective PM?
Tom Watson is one of those people who has got a "left-wing" tag despite no-one ever being able to pinpoint any left-wing views he has. I dunno, but I've never really got the impression there's all that much enthusiasm for him with the grassroots.
Incorrect.
BTW, how many of you got on Corbyn at north of 100/1? Now 18/1 on Betfair.
I have a green number of around £500 to play around on Corbyn with.
The question is what price is the correct one to lay at ?
I wouldn't touch any EU Referendum markets until we have an outcome to the Greek Crisis
Greece just needs to plain leave. If it stays it's just going to drag the Euro lower and lower. There'll be an exit shock when it happens, but prolonging the inevitable will only make matters worse.
Farage on leading the campaign: - “I would be prepared to of course. But I suspect what we will see is somebody coming from completely outside of normal politics, somebody from the world of business or entertainment that hasn’t got any political baggage at all. I think someone like that may well emerge.”
It's silly to refer to all ethnic minority voters as "black" too.
Do the Irish and Poles count as ethnic minorities or not these days? I can never keep up with the latest rulings from the high priests of political correctness.
For the purposes of the annual educational census, any child who does not have two White British parents is an ethnic minority. I would count as an ethnic minority on that basis.
Comments
All the more reason for Boris to enhance his chances by fronting the No campaign.
2) Even if he does, is his closeness to David Cameron going to be an advantage or a disadvantage at the critical moment? After the EU referendum, it seems likely that a clean break from the old regime might be sought if that was a divisive process.
3) Since the general election result and David Cameron's announcement that he's not seeking a third term, laying Boris Johnson for next Conservative leader has been one of the easiest bets in politics. The next Conservative leader will immediately be Prime Minister and inevitably the contest will focus on executive competence and steadiness rather than charisma.
Get your £2.50 or w/e you're allowed on.
Shorely they won't go for Eagle !
However, you can get better odds on him* being next PM than on next leader - the two are almost identical contigencies in current circumstances.
* Osborne, not Mike!
Obviously the process is going to be farcical.
Q1: 17 year old bomber
A1: Easy one. Nice comment about "Bennites in the party leadership contest" (thinks: 'this is fun')
Q2: Anti-radicalisation programmes not working
A2: Whatever (thinks 'there must be a trap here')
Q3: More anti-radicalisation stuff
A3: Blah, blah, easy peasy (thinks: 'apparently not')
Q4: ISIS/ISIL - we must confront them!
A4: Well, yes, obviously. (thinks: 'PMQ is a piece of cake')
Q5: International aid / syrian refugees
A5: Blah (thinks 'don't what Dave moans about')
Q6: Refugees: withdrawing S&R ship from med?
A6: Evade. Easy. (thinks 'wonder what's for dinner?')
All-in-all, about as challenging as a modern day GCSE. Not a test at all.
One struggles to think of any outcome that wouldn't be a dream ticket today. Kendall / Flint, maybe; one a green cleanskin and the other an actual ex Minister although a lightweight and a bit too gorgeous and pouting (http://www.sunnation.co.uk/s3/sunnation-prod/uploads/2015/03/Caroline-Flint..jpg) to take seriously. Neither of them downright dislikeable though.
Someone who does this but then loans the excess nominations back to another candidate is honouring the spirit of the contest rules but is essentially doing two things to achieve nothing, which should perhaps give fair warning as to what the schmo would be like as PM. A sensible candidate would declare at 35 and stop collecting names.
Labour really ought to have seen that coming but unlike, say, the failure of banking regulation, they didn't have the benefit of prescient advice from people like Peter Lilley.
Dave might be regretting his choice of deputy on this evidence...
Cameron, Osborne and Hodges: three people widely derided on here, but who appear to have more nous than their detractors.
But like Mike, I'm now thinking he wants it, and he can have it.
The Tory Party really do appreciate his skills as a top top strategist and tactician.
No wonder he is being compared to Caesar
It's silly to refer to all ethnic minority voters as "black" too.
Hilary Benn needs a history lesson.
He said the events in the Med are the largest movement of refugees since World War II?
Is it really larger than the movement that we saw when India was partitioned?
The stability of his remaining in post would also be a great comfort to an incoming Prime Minister.This would be a reason for me as a Party member NOT to vote for him as a new PM. With Osborne as PM, it is likely to be musical chairs across Govt. - and who knows how that plays out.
There is also no guarantee that he would be as good as a PM as he was a CotE. History might just remember him as a poor PM who lost the majority, rather than the best Chancellor we have known.
http://dailym.ai/1IDajQi
If Osborne is the next leader then it makes the question of what Cameron does next even more difficult. I can't see him sitting on the back-benches so he either retreats a la John Major or takes a Cabinet job. Either would be very unusual in the circumstances.
I think I'm going to have revise it some more.
To think someone wrote a thread three years ago saying Osborne was crap and needed to be replaced by Ken Clarke.
What a numpty.
I therefore see him going all the way to 2020, with a new Conservative Party leader selected a year ahead of time, who will lead the GE campaign as the designated 'next' prime minister.
I still don't know if he can manage it (or win in 2020 if he does), or if he will try to steer things from behind the scenes forevermore (I have this vision of him being chancellor for 15-20 years, switching out his frontman when he needs to), but when suggested as an option now, I'd expect people to shrug before answering in the positive or negative now, whereas before it would just be instant dismissal.
Could be fun - newer faces wanting to rise, but Osborne is old guard but still fresh faced (It's hard to think he will have been chancellor for 10 years possibly before he is even 50), a threat to their chances.
The alternative, of course, is that DC crashes out in the aftermath of the EU referendum, in which case anything could happen in the melee that follows!
I am pleased to see @antifrank agree with me that laying Boris is the way forward now, I've got nearly four figures on that position at close to evens.
He's the slayer of Blair and Murdoch, should make him favourite.
Don't want a repeat of the escort fiasco.
Tom Watson is one of those people who has got a "left-wing" tag despite no-one ever being able to pinpoint any left-wing views he has. I dunno, but I've never really got the impression there's all that much enthusiasm for him with the grassroots.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/17/china-and-australia-formally-sign-free-trade-agreement
In other news, thank goodness we don't live in the US or have to abide by their current/future/past "ok" way to refer to "people of color".
It really does tie them up in knots, brought into focus with this Dolezal case, hearing the protagonists and commentators discuss it.
If they wanted something more exciting Labour should really have put up one of the candidates for leader but I bet none of them fancied it. Too much to lose.
BTW, how many of you got on Corbyn at north of 100/1? Now 18/1 on Betfair.
Sid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Caesar
Nigel Farage defied critics this morning to vow he will lead the charge for the No campaign because other politicians won’t step up.
His comments are a direct challenge to senior Tories, who claim the controversial Ukip boss is too “toxic” to take a high profile role in the campaign.
http://bit.ly/1Fmn7Wo
Why give up that massive advantage that the Tories have over the Labour prospective PM?
The question is what price is the correct one to lay at ?
Afternoon all,
If anyone would like to play the Denmark game, it closes at 7pm today:
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/denmark15/
Many thanks,
DC
My my, can I segue in any subtle references into a Swedish band into tomorrow's threads?
I guess that disqualifies Eddie Izzard then..
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/17/nigel-farage-prepared-lead-no-campaign-eu-referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Caesar
Cesar Romero?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Romero#/media/File:Romero_as_The_Joker.png